Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Maine commercial fishing regulators are working on a string of closures to scalloping grounds

March 16, 2016 (AP) — MACHIAS, Maine — Maine commercial fishing regulators are working on a string of closures to scalloping grounds around the state as the season nears its end.

A spokesman for the state Department of Marine Resources says the agency is working on an emergency action that would close areas such as the Inner Machias Rotational Area, Wahoa/Jonesport Reach and Gouldsboro Bay and Dyers Bay.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at Daily Journal

CFOOD: Catch Shares vs. Sharing Catch

November 24, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a commentary by Stephen J. Hall, David J. Mills, and Neil L. Andrew, written in response to an article published last year in Slate magazine, by Lee van der Voo.

The commentary was published yesterday by CFOOD, a project of the University of Washington involving top marine scientists from around the world, including Dr. Ray Hilborn. CFOOD’s mission is to identify and refute “erroneous stories about fisheries sustainability that appear in mainstream media.”

The commentary addresses issues, most notably fleet consolidation, related to the implementation of catch share systems. 

Writing last year in Slate magazine, Lee van der Voo considered catch shares in the US to be, “one of the coolest vehicles environmental policy has seen in decades,” because they reduce fishing effort, diminish incentives to fish in dangerous weather, can boost the value of seafood, and most importantly, were designed to keep fishing rights with the fishermen and their communities. However this last attribute has not worked for most catch share programs and increasingly these rights are bought by large investment firms and offshore companies that find loopholes in the loosely-regulated catch share laws and regulations.

Van der Voo fears that over the long term catch shares will increase costs, fishermen will earn less because of higher rental payments owed to, “people in suits,” that own the fishing rights. Consumers would then pay more in this scenario while a handful of investors would become rich.

Atlantic coast clam fisheries are the first example of this cycle: Bumble Bee Foods which has exclusive rights to almost 25% of America’s clams, was recently acquired by Lion Capital, a British equity firm. The Alaskan crab fisheries have also experienced a disconnect in recent years between fishing rights ownership and the people actually harvesting the resource.

Proponents of catch shares need to, “acknowledge that it’s an investment vehicle too, and the fish councils that manage it lack resources and political savvy to keep fishing rights in the US and in the hands of fishermen.”

Comment by Stephen J. Hall, David J. Mills & Neil L. Andrew

In the context of US fisheries, the term “catch shares” refers to a system in which the government grants fishing rights (quotas) to individuals or companies on a de facto permanent basis and establishes a market for buying, leasing or selling those rights. In other parts of the world, this same approach is referred to as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), or Transferable Fishing Concessions (TFCs).

For ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks, catch shares in the US are “one of the coolest vehicles environmental policy has seen in decades.” Yet while the potential of catch shares to reduce fishing mortality to sustainable levels is clear, the long term benefits for fishers and fishing communities are much less so. Van der Voo describes how catch shares in the US clam fishery have accumulated in the hands of a few wealthy investors and offshore companies. Clearly, it is an issue that deserves much greater attention.

Lessons from Experience

The potential pitfalls of catch shares and other schemes to allocate private property rights in fisheries have not escaped scholars. For example, Benediktsson and Karlsdóttir (2011)  describes how the ITQ system in Iceland saw 50% of quota in the hands of 10 companies by 2007, a result that arguably contributed to the country’s financial crisis. Analyses of events in Denmark and Chile point to similar concentrations of quota with marked negative impacts on traditional fishing communities. In Chile, an estimated 68% of people working in the fisheries sector had to share 10% of the quota with the remaining 90% was owned by just four companies.

Rights-based fisheries (RBF), the concept that environmental and economic objectives in fisheries are best served by introducing private property rights, has been a dominating proposition over the last two decades. Zealous promotion of RBF (e.g. Neher et al. 1989, Cunnigham et al, 2009), and experiences such as those described above, has led to equally zealous rebuttal, largely on the grounds of social justice, particularly for small-scale fishers.

In South Africa, that rebuttal ultimately took the form of class action to challenge the prevailing system. Based on ITQs, this system was intended to reduce poverty by creating small-scale fishing enterprises that generated wealth for fisher households. Unfortunately, it was a system that saw 90% of the country’s 50,000 small scale fishers lose their rights. As Isaacs (2011) notes:  

This system failed as many new entrants were allocated unviable fishing rights, most of them were vulnerable, many sold their rights to established companies, and some fell deeper into poverty. At local community level, the wealth-based approach of allocating small quotas to many rights holders resulted in the community elite (teachers, artisans, shop-owners and local councillors) capturing the rights. Many bona fide fishers with limited literacy and numeracy skills were unable to comply with all the formal requirement of the rights allocation process.

In 2007, the courts granted an order requiring the government to develop a new small-scale fishing policy. This new policy was endorsed in 2012. Instead of being based on the principles of individual property rights, the focus was on collective rights granted to communities.

As with the US clam fishery, these examples suggest that, even when measures are put in place to try and avoid unwanted social impacts and retain an equitable distribution of benefits, catch share (rights based) schemes often fail to maintain social justice and the livelihoods of small-scale fishers and fishing communities.

A Confused Debate

Setting a total allowable catch and allocating rights can certainly be an effective way of ensuring the sustainability of a stock, provided that the level is appropriate, ongoing monitoring processes are well designed and there is compliance. Arguably, it is for this reason that many NGOs have convinced philanthropic investors of the merits of this approach. In the last decade, fisheries improvement projects in both the developed and the developing world have become big business; establishing “catch shares” is often a key selling point.

What is not always clear, however, is the extent to which these NGOs, in promoting “catch shares” are also advocating the allocation of private property rights in a market-based system. The language that distinguishes between this strict definition of “catch shares” and other approaches for ‘sharing the catch’ (which, of course, all systems must ultimately do) is terribly blurred.

Exploring this idea, Macinko (2014) argues that a tool (pre-assigned catch, i.e., catch shares) is being confused with an ideology (the sellable, but simplistic notion that private ownership promotes stewardship). everal social movements, for example, feared the now defunct Global Partnership for Oceans’ (GPOs) use of terms such as “community rights” reflected “a new euphemism and language strategy in pursuit of more private and individual access rights regimes.”

A more generous interpretation of the GPO terminology is that, after an early period of advocacy, the pitfalls of “catch shares” with respect to social outcomes were recognized and other ways of sharing the catch were acknowledged. The same interpretation can also be applied to NGOs currently involved in fisheries improvement projects around the world. The proof of that generosity will lie in the approaches that are adopted for inclusion of small-scale fishers. What should those approaches be?

Read the full story at CFOOD 

Voices of Alaska: Unified effort in Congress protects Alaska’s seafood powerhouse

November 20, 2015 — Alaska is our nation’s seafood powerhouse. With nine of our country’s top twenty fishing ports by volume, we understand the vital role our seafood industry has played in our communities in the past, how important it is now, and how central the industry will be in the future. Protecting and enhancing Alaska’s fisheries is one of the top priorities of our delegation.

That’s why we were particularly pleased to have passed bipartisan legislation to help protect and enhance our fishing industry. H.R. 477, the Illegal, Unregulated and Underreported (IUU) Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015, increases enforcement capabilities for U.S. authorities to combat illegal fishing and protect fisheries off the coast of Alaska, and around the world. It was signed into law on November 5, 2015.

At issue is how illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or “pirate” fishing, is hurting our economy, our fishing communities, our healthy seafood stocks, and our sustainable oceans.

Our country’s fishermen have long been subject to sustainable management-based rules and regulations to ensure the long-term vitality of our species; pirate fishermen are not. These rogue vessels raid our oceans wherever, whenever, and however they please. Globally, legal fishing operations lose an estimated $10 to $23 billion a year to pirate fishing. Here at home, the Alaska King Crab fishery alone is estimated to have lost more than $550 million in the past 14 years.

Read the full opinion piece at Peninsula Clarion

 

NORTH CAROLINA: Fisheries division criticized for avoiding recommendations to regulators

November 12, 2015 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission is a nine-member regulatory body that was created by the North Carolina General Assembly to regulate fishing activity and conserve the marine and estuarine fishery resources in state waters. The General Assembly has stated in law that the Commission has the duty to provide fair regulation of fishing groups in the interest of the public. The Division of Marine Fisheries is the state agency that is charged to offer scientific support to the Commission and carry out the regulations adopted by the Commission.

Currently, the issue of most concern of the Commission and the Division is that of southern flounder. Since February, the Commission has been debating various proposals to reduce the catch of southern flounder, which is our state’s most important finfish fishery for commercial fishermen. The total economic impact of this fishery averages $17 million per year to North Carolina, just for those fish caught commercially. 

Remarkably, since the Commission started the process of debating the issue of southern flounder management over 9 months ago, the Division of Marine Fisheries has not offered any recommended actions to reduce the catch of southern flounder. Currently, only one of the nine Commission members has a scientific background in fisheries, and even that experience is not based on saltwater fisheries. Yet, the Division, who has the expertise on staff that could assist the Commissioners, has not made any formal recommendations on the options being considered by the Commission or offered any options of their own. 

“We wonder why the Division exists, if not to offer assistance and make recommendations to the members of the Marine Fisheries Commission in carrying out their conservation responsibilities”, said Brent Fulcher, Chairman of the Board of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, (NCFA). 

The MFC has put six options on the table for consideration under a fishery management plan “supplement”, and the issue will be decided at its meeting next week in Nags Head.

“In the 28 years I’ve been involved with this process, I cannot remember a time when the Commission has faced such a contentious and important issue such as this one, where the Division was silent in assisting the Commission with recommended actions from a scientific perspective”, said the President of NCFA, Jerry Schill. “This decision, which will have a huge effect on many commercial fishing families and many coastal communities, is on a track for a decision to be devoid of any science and based totally on politics. That is a sad day in fisheries management for our state. Our fishermen and consumers deserve better.”

The North Carolina Fisheries Association urges the Director of Marine Fisheries, Dr. Louis Daniel, to offer recommendations based upon science to the Marine Fisheries Commission, prior to its deliberations next week.

Schill concluded, “The angst over this measure was made much more contentious when the Commission adopted the draconian net ban language, which is clearly outside the scope of the supplement process. Add the Division’s failure to offer recommendations based upon science, and you have a recipe for a very combative atmosphere.”

The North Carolina Fisheries Association is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of North Carolina’s commercial fishing families.

Fishermen facing huge cost to pay for at-sea monitors as federal dollars dwindle

November 11, 2015 — QUINCY, Mass.  — The Northeast Fisheries Service Center said Wednesday that money to pay for at-sea monitors on fishing vessels is almost depleted, leaving fishermen and companies that own fishing vessels to cover the cost come January.

Bringing along a monitor to watch over the daily catch will cost local fishermen more than $700 a day.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program started five years ago, but the NOAA and taxpayers picked up the tab at a total cost of $18.4 million since 2010, said Teri Frady, a spokeswoman for the Gloucester-based fisheries service said.

Frady was unable to say how many fishing boats in the state are currently mandated to have a monitor.

Marshfield fisherman Ed Barrett said the regulation affects any fishing boat working under the federal catch share program.

“No one can afford to do this,” said Barrett, who is president of the Massachusetts Bay Ground Fishermen’s Association. “There’s just not that kind of profit margin in this.”

Forced to pay $710 to bring along an approved monitor, some fishermen would actually lose money depending on the day’s catch, he added.

It was unclear Wednesday whether Congress would vote to restore funding to the program.

Read the full story at the Marshfield Mariner

 

BOSTON HERALD: Drowning in regulations

November 6, 2015 — President Obama is poised to designate two large areas off the New England coast as national marine “monuments,” to the delight of conservationists who seem much more interested in protecting the ocean than they are in protecting people.

Gov. Charlie Baker has written to President Obama to express concern about the impact on the region’s fishermen if the federal government turns part of the New England coastline into a sort of undersea museum — one that only scientists are likely ever to lay eyes on. Baker in his letter raises reasonable concerns about the process — or lack thereof — that led to this point.

Yes, Obama has the authority to take this step under the Antiquities Act (and has done so for other areas in the Pacific, as did President George W. Bush). But Baker notes there has been little public input into the decision to designate areas known as Cashes Ledge and the New England Canyons and Seamounts as national monuments, making them off limits to commercial fishing and such activities as oil or gas exploration or extraction — permanently.

Read the full editorial at the Boston Herald

NORTH CAROLINA: Lesser-known catches taking center spot

November 1, 2015 — It’s been an upstream swim, but thanks to curious consumers, clever marketing and a widening understanding of environmental realities, North Carolinians are gradually weaning themselves from a steady diet of top-shelf but increasingly restricted fish like tuna, grouper and snapper. In their wake, previously disregarded or invasive species such as triggerfish and lion fish have taken center spot on our collective plates, and a shift to these lesser-known catch will likely continue as fishermen, fishmongers and fish fans adjust to availability.

“With all the regulations out there put on top of the North Carolina fishermen, there’s got to be some type of diversity, some other type of catch to help them make their income,” said John Aydlett, a seafood marketing specialist with the N.C. Department of Agriculture. “And by diversifying the species, it helps them spread out their season.”

Read the full story at Star News Online

 

MASSACHUSETTS: NOAA head visits New Bedford, tours harbor

October 28, 2015 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — The commercial fishing community had an opportunity to meet and discuss regulations on Tuesday with Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the first in person meeting between the NOAA administrator and local fishing community since 1993.

The closed-door meeting included a boat tour of the New Bedford Harbor and a discussion at the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth with fishermen, city leaders, and other officials.

Sullivan’s visit comes as the ground fishing industry prepares to take another hit with the cost of at-sea monitors shifting to the fishing boats. Estimates are it will cost fishing boats $710 or more each day to employ a person to count the fish that a boat takes in.

The meeting was meant to spark a conversation between the regulators and the commercial fishing community in New Bedford, which is considered the United States’ top fishing port with annual landings valued at $379 million.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

NOAA Fisheries Accepts Petition to List Thorny Skate under ESA

October 26, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

In response to a petition from Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) to list thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) under the Endangered Species Act, we have prepared a 90-day finding. We accept the petition and are initiating a review of the status of the species.

The petition, which we received in May 2015, requested that we list a “Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment” or a “United States Distinct Population Segment” of thorny skate as threatened or endangered. The petition also requested a designation of critical habitat for thorny skate. 

The petitioners claim that the species numbers have been declining since the 1970s, and that the species is threatened by illegal landings, bycatch and discard mortality, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (related to fishing), global climate change and hypoxia, and natural stochastic events. 

We will now start a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the species or any potential distinct population segments is warranted. We are asking for public input through the Federal Register notice published today. 

You may submit information or data on this document by either any of the following methods: 

  • Online: Submit information and data via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. 
  • Mail: Submit information and data to Julie Crocker, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Protected Resources Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, USA.

The deadline for submissions is December 28.

Our determination will be published as a notice in the Federal Register within 12 months.

Questions? Contact Jennifer Goebel, Regional Office, at 978-281-9175 or Jennifer.Goebel@noaa.gov.

Thorny skate. Credit: NOAA/Tobey Curtis

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Commercial fishermen balk at new fees

September 13, 2015 — SEABROOK, N.H. — New Hampshire’s commercial fishing industry could vanish soon, industry members said, as the state’s last nine active boat operators face what they call new back-breaking costs imposed by the federal government.

Commercial fishermen will meet Monday at 4:30 p.m. with U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H., at Yankee Fisherman’s Cooperative in Seabrook to discuss the new costs, which pay for regulatory observers.

David Goethel, a Hampton-based fisherman, said New Hampshire’s congressional delegation is the industry’s last hope to get federal regulators off its back.

Guinta, U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., each expressed concern for the New Hampshire fishing industry as a result of the regulations in the last year.

“The only leverage we have is Congress,” Goethel said.

Regulations have become more stringent in recent years to help Gulf of Maine cod stocks bounce back from what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association called dangerously low numbers. Goethel said the regulations reduced the amount of allowable catch for commercial fishermen by 95 percent over the last four years.

Half the New Hampshire fishermen became inactive this summer because of the regulations, said Dan Salerno, sector manager for fishermen on the New Hampshire coastline. Fishing vessels are divided into sectors by NOAA to keep track of regulations. New Hampshire fishermen fall into Sector 11.

But the new costs scheduled to begin Nov. 1, require fishermen to pay hundreds of dollars a day for 24 percent of fishermen’s days at sea for observers to monitor them while they work. Up until this point, NOAA covered the cost, paying an average of $710 a day for at-sea monitoring, but this year NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator John Bullard announced the cost would be picked up by the industry.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Recent Headlines

  • Scallops: Council Initiates Framework 35; Approves 2023-2024 Research-Set Aside Program Priorities
  • Offshore wind farms could reduce Atlantic City’s surfclam fishery revenue up to 25%, Rutgers study suggests
  • ‘Talk with us, not for us’: fishing communities accuse UN of ignoring their voices
  • VIRGINIA: Youngkin administration warns feds new wind areas could hurt commercial fisheries
  • Whale activists file objection to Gulf of Maine lobster fishery certification
  • NOAA Fisheries Invites Public Comment on New Draft Equity and Environmental Justice Strategy
  • MAINE: Lobstermen frustrated by regulations after new study shows whale entanglements decline
  • Over 100 Maine seafood dealers and processors awarded more than $15 million in grants

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon Scallops South Atlantic Tuna Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2022 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions